Literature DB >> 19373422

Predictors of malignancy and recommended follow-up in patients with negative endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of suspected pancreatic lesions.

Bret J Spier1, Eric A Johnson, Deepak V Gopal, Terrence Frick, Michael M Einstein, Siobhan Byrne, Rebecca L Koscik, Jinn-Ing Liou, Terri Broxmeyer, Suzanne M Selvaggi, Patrick R Pfau.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) can characterize and diagnose pancreatic lesions as malignant, but cannot definitively rule out the presence of malignancy. Outcome data regarding the length of follow-up in patients with negative or nondiagnostic EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions are not well-established.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the long-term outcome and provide follow-up guidance for patients with negative EUS-FNA diagnosis of suspected pancreatic lesions based on imaging predictors.
METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing EUS-FNA for suspected pancreatic lesions, but with negative or nondiagnostic FNA results was conducted at a tertiary care referral medical centre. Patient demographics, EUS imaging characteristics and follow-up data were examined.
RESULTS: Seventeen of 55 patients (30.9%) with negative/nondiagnostic FNA were subsequently diagnosed with pancreatic malignancy. The risk of cancer was significantly higher for patients who had associated lymph nodes on EUS (P<0.001) and vascular involvement on EUS (P=0.001). The mean time to diagnosis in the group with falsenegative EUS-FNA diagnosis was 66 days. The true-negative EUSFNA patients were followed for a mean of 403 days after negative EUS-FNA results without the development of malignancy.
CONCLUSION: For patients undergoing EUS-FNA for a suspected pancreatic lesion, a negative or nondiagnostic FNA does not provide conclusive evidence for the absence of cancer. Patients for whom vascular invasion and lymphadenopathy are detected on EUS are more likely to have a true malignant lesion and should be followed closely. When a patient has been monitored for six months or more with no cancer being diagnosed, there appears to be much less chance that a pancreatic malignancy is present.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19373422      PMCID: PMC2711679          DOI: 10.1155/2009/870323

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0835-7900            Impact factor:   3.522


  22 in total

1.  Endoscopic ultrasound criteria for vascular invasion in the staging of cancer of the head of the pancreas: a blind reevaluation of videotapes.

Authors:  T Rösch; H J Dittler; K Strobel; A Meining; V Schusdziarra; R Lorenz; H D Allescher; A M Kassem; P Gerhardt; J R Siewert; H Höfler; M Classen
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 2.  Review of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology.

Authors:  Ricardo H Bardales; Edward B Stelow; Shawn Mallery; Rebecca Lai; Michael W Stanley
Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 1.582

3.  Value of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses.

Authors:  M Voss; P Hammel; G Molas; L Palazzo; A Dancour; D O'Toole; B Terris; C Degott; P Bernades; P Ruszniewski
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 23.059

4.  Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy: a large single centre experience.

Authors:  D B Williams; A V Sahai; L Aabakken; I D Penman; A van Velse; J Webb; M Wilson; B J Hoffman; R H Hawes
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 23.059

5.  Yield of EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses in the presence or the absence of chronic pancreatitis.

Authors:  Shyam Varadarajulu; Ashutosh Tamhane; Mohamad A Eloubeidi
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 6.  Endoscopic ultrasound in the clinical staging and management of pancreatic cancer: its impact on cost of treatment.

Authors:  M E Powis; K J Chang
Journal:  Cancer Control       Date:  2000 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.302

7.  Endosonography-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in the evaluation of pancreatic masses.

Authors:  Gavin C Harewood; Maurits J Wiersema
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 10.864

8.  Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in patients with presumed pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Chandrajit P Raut; Ana M Grau; Gregg A Staerkel; Madhukar Kaw; Eric P Tamm; Robert A Wolff; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Jeffrey E Lee; Peter W T Pisters; Douglas B Evans
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 3.452

9.  Diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer by endoscopic ultrasound.

Authors:  K Akahoshi; Y Chijiiwa; I Nakano; H Nawata; Y Ogawa; M Tanaka; E Nagai; M Tsuneyoshi
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound chronic pancreatitis criteria to the endoscopic secretin-stimulated pancreatic function test.

Authors:  Darwin L Conwell; Gregory Zuccaro; Edward Purich; Seymour Fein; John J Vargo; John A Dumot; Frederick VanLente; Rocio Lopez; Patricia Trolli
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2007-03-27       Impact factor: 3.487

View more
  7 in total

1.  Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration: Technique and applications in clinical practice.

Authors:  Benjamin Tharian; Fotios Tsiopoulos; Nayana George; Salvatore Di Pietro; Fabia Attili; Alberto Larghi
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2012-12-16

Review 2.  Ultrasound-guided percutaneous fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic neoplasms: 10-year experience with more than 2,000 cases and a review of the literature.

Authors:  Mirko D'Onofrio; Riccardo De Robertis; Emilio Barbi; Enrico Martone; Erminia Manfrin; Stefano Gobbo; Gino Puntel; Franco Bonetti; Roberto Pozzi Mucelli
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration characteristics of primary adenocarcinoma versus other malignant neoplasms of the pancreas.

Authors:  Veronika Gagovic; Bret J Spier; Ryan J DeLee; Courtney Barancin; Mary Lindstrom; Michael Einstein; Siobhan Byrne; Josephine Harter; Rashmi Agni; Patrick R Pfau; Terrence J Frick; Anurag Soni; Deepak V Gopal
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.522

Review 4.  Endoscopic ultrasonography guided-fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of solid pancreaticobiliary lesions: Clinical aspects to improve the diagnosis.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Matsubayashi; Toru Matsui; Yohei Yabuuchi; Kenichiro Imai; Masaki Tanaka; Naomi Kakushima; Keiko Sasaki; Hiroyuki Ono
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  Role of repeated endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for inconclusive initial cytology result.

Authors:  Eun Young Kim
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2013-09-30

6.  Post-brushing and fine-needle aspiration biopsy follow-up and treatment options for patients with pancreatobiliary lesions: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Guidelines.

Authors:  Daniel F I Kurtycz; Andrew Field; Laura Tabatabai; Claire Michaels; Nancy Young; C Max Schmidt; James Farrell; Deepak Gopal; Diane Simeone; Nipun B Merchant; Martha Bishop Pitman
Journal:  Cytojournal       Date:  2014-06-02       Impact factor: 2.091

7.  Additional K-ras mutation analysis and Plectin-1 staining improve the diagnostic accuracy of pancreatic solid mass in EUS-guided fine needle aspiration.

Authors:  Joo Kyung Park; Woo Hyun Paik; Byeong Jun Song; Ji Kon Ryu; Min A Kim; Jin Myung Park; Sang Hyub Lee; Yong-Tae Kim
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-03-11
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.